Which way should I do this?

[+parkrrrr]

We're getting ready to place our first cache, and I've been working for weeks on making it as interesting as I possibly can. We've scouted out three out of four locations for it, and we're likely to find the fourth this weekend.

 

My first instinct was to make it a classic multicache, with a puzzle at each stage that you need to solve to find the coordinates of the next stage. Some of the puzzles are pretty easy; the first one is so simple that even a child should be able to solve it. The second one is a little harder, mainly because of artificial constraints that can be worked around with sufficient hints, and the third one is in the process of being playtested by a bunch of non-geocachers. So far, two people have tried the third puzzle and given up on it. (Yes, Kodak's4, it is uniquely solvable; I've tested it on the computer.)

 

So far, so good. I have nothing against placing a 5/3, even on our first outing. However, Warm, the other member of the team I cache with, has suggested that maybe we should try to make at least part of it achievable by mere mortals as well.

 

So, we're gonna put it to y'all: should we do this as a pure 5/3 multicache, or should we try my alternate proposal, which is to make the first stage a full-sized 2/2 or below, then make the second stage a 3/2 micro multi (micro because it will be just the puzzle and maybe a log sheet, multi in the sense that you have to find and solve the first stage before you can even attempt the second), the third stage a similar micro multi but 4/3 (the terrain is steeper where the third stage will be, the walk is longer, and there's another puzzle to solve) and the final stage a full-sized 5/3 multi that only the insane will find. Each stage would have its own cache page, with its own description, log, and hints. Coordinates for the final three stages would be somewhere in the area, but possibly several miles from the actual cache site (so as to avoid people finding the cache without solving the puzzle.)

 

This means we still get to place that 5/3 I want, but we compromise on the difficulty: someone who finds all four stages gets 4 finds to their credit, but someone who fails to solve any of the puzzles still gets to claim a find for the first stage. There is a precedent for this type of multi in the area; see Clue Two and Fort Wayne, Cash Cache.

 

I'm not making this a poll topic, because I want to hear well-reasoned arguments for whichever side you happen to fall on. So, how about it? Which way do you think we should place it?

[+Kodak's4]

I really like your plan. One of the things that keeps an activity fun is being able to scale the difficulty to your skills. Maximum fun occurs when you tackle a task that is just beyond the limits of your current skills.

 

Your scheme of multi caches of increasing difficulty does exactly that - it offers people a way to tackle a challenge that increases. They get an easy start, then the bar gets raised, providing an incentive to tackle something they might have passed on if it was the first task in the series. Having each stage be a separate cache means that people get intermediate rewards, and they get rewards even if they can't finish the series.

 

I'd suggest only one change to your 'alternate' plan - namely, you should locate the whole shebang close to Seattle.

 

As a side note, puzzles with more than one solution might be an interesting twist - there's a cache here in Seattle (16 Ancestors) that is fun because you're given 3 locations to search for the clue, and you don't know which one actually *has* the clue. This changes the game

somewhat.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

(so as to avoid people finding the cache without solving the puzzle.)

---

 

I should note, for the sake of full disclosure, that "finding the cache without solving the puzzle" is exactly what we did with the cache I gave as an example, except that there was no puzzle in "Clue Two." So of course I want to keep other people from doing the same with our cache.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

(so as to avoid people finding the cache without solving the puzzle.)

---

 

I should note, for the sake of full disclosure, that "finding the cache without solving the puzzle" is exactly what we did with the cache I gave as an example, except that there was no puzzle in "Clue Two." So of course I want to keep other people from doing the same with our cache.

[+Jinkeez]

Let me preface my opinion by stating that I haven't been caching for too long, I have never placed a cache, I'm not in your area, so I probably won't get to participate in finding your cache, and I don't know what types of caches the folks in your local community prefer, or even what the terrain and geography is like there.

 

The first cache I went looking for was the one closest to home, so I'm guessing you live pretty close to your first find, too. I looked at the list other nearby caches in that area, and the vast majority of them are 1/1. Now, I love caching and I'll go looking for those 1/1's all day, but your area seems like it's ready for something different..! I think you should go for it and place the 5/3 right off the bat.

 

You can always set the cachers' expectations in your description of the cache. Make sure they know what they're in for--Tell them that it will be a long and arduous path upon which their mental capacity will be taxed to the very limit... Tell them that when they look down and see only one set of footprints, it's because Jesus was carrying them to the third stage of the cache. Tell them that the rivers will run red with the blood of those who failed to find the cache, and that the wailing of their women is still heard across the land. Not only will they know exactly what they're getting into, but they'll appreciate it even more when they actually find the cache!

 

And they won't be the only ones with a feeling of triumph and success in their hearts. YOU will feel it, too. You'll be able to be proud of the fact that you designed a really solid, challenging cache, and you'll be proud of the fellow cachers who manage to find it.

 

There are plenty of 2's and 3's in your area, my friend... Go forth, and place a 5/3 cache so totally cool, that people will come in from out of state to hunt for it. (insert swell of patriotic music here)A cache that will make us all proud. A cache that will bring us together. A cache that will change the very face of our sport! You have the tools! You have the knowledge! You have the support and adoration of your fellow cachers! YOU WILL NOT FAIL!

 

[This message was edited by Jinkeez on April 16, 2002 at 10:13 AM.]

[+Markwell]

The problem you have is that you need coordinates for the different stages. What coordinates would you use when creating the cache pages for stage 2 or stage 3.

 

My personal take (as a person who has a 5.0/2.5 Cache) is that you could go ahead and post it as a 5/3, but allow people to log each step of their journey as a separate "find" - thus keeping all of the logs on the same cache page. A cacher can log a cache as found more than once and it does increase their "find count."

 

I've never been to strict about maintaining Hard as PI's integrity on the "found" count. If people want to log that they found the second stage as "found" instead of a note, so be it. But I think that this mentality plays perfectly into your situation.

 

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

[+kam]

I like Markwell's idea. I placed a multi with a film canister for the first cache and a small rubbermaid sandwitch box for the second. I wished all along there was a way for people to log both as finds. Looks like Markwell found it. Anyone visiting my cache by a dam site. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=18664 is welcome to log it as a find for each one if they want to. in fact, due to the difficulty of the cache I am going to add that note to the cache page.

[+parkrrrr]

We like your idea, Markwell, but it brings to mind another question: what should we do with the hints for the later stages? Should we just have a huge block of encrypted text with the hints for each stage separated by plaintext saying essentially "the following hints are for the third stage. They won't help you find the first stage"?

 

I know, I know, a level 5 shouldn't need hints. Well, the design and difficulty of this one allows for some hints without losing any of the "five-ness." In particular, since all of the puzzles are nominally designed to be solvable without being told what the solution should look like, we can hint about what the final solution should look like for those who just don't catch on to the nature of the puzzle(something like "Did you notice that there are six pegs and six holes?") without giving away the answer. Also, of course, we can hint about the actual hiding place (the classic "va n gerr") once you get to the coordinates for each stage, though we might skip all those kinds of hints for the final stage.

[+Kodak's4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

The problem you have is that you need coordinates for the different stages. What coordinates would you use when creating the cache pages for stage 2 or stage 3.

 

---

 

Use the same technique used for any puzzle cache - coordinates which identify the general area but are not the coordinates of the actual cache. Then put a large, red notice that the coordinates must be *found* as part of the puzzle solution/multicache hunt.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kodak's4:

Use the same technique used for any puzzle cache - coordinates which identify the general area but are not the coordinates of the actual cache. Then put a large, red notice that the coordinates must be *found* as part of the puzzle solution/multicache hunt.

---

 

Exactly. Thus the statement that "Coordinates for the final three stages would be somewhere in the area, but possibly several miles from the actual cache site." I'd put them closer, but I'd be afraid that the combination of knowing the location within, say, 1/2 mile plus any hints that might be available would give it away. Further complicating matters, there's already a very nice cache very near one of the later stages of my proposed multi, and I wouldn't want anyone to get confused. Of course, Markwell's suggestion fixes all of those problems.

 

For an example of the first sort of problem, consider "Fort Wayne, Cash Cache" again. Believe it or not, the photos on the cache page actually enable one to find the cache without a GPS (and without finding "Clue Two") if one knows the area even a little bit. (Even so, it took us three tries before we succeeded...)

[+Markwell]

quote:

---

but it brings to mind another question: what should we do with the hints for the later stages?

---

 

How about using the ROT13 encryption, but don't put them in the encrypted area.

 

That way, the person would have to manually decrypt them individually.

 

One of our Chicago cachers came up with a scripted solution for ROT13 encryption/decryption. All you would have to do is cut and paste and make it part of the regular part of the cache page.

 

Here's the code. Copy and paste it into a text editor and save as an HTML document locally on your hard drive. The run through IE or Netscape.

<HEAD><SCRIPT language=javascript>function decode() {var instring = new String(document.forms[0].code.value);var outstring=new String("");var alphabet=new String("abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz");var key = new String ("nopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklm");var slen = instring.length;var i, orig_char, pos, translated_char;instring = instring.toLowerCase();for ( i = 0; i < slen; ++i ){    orig_char = new String(instring.charAt(i));    //find letter's position in alphabet    pos = alphabet.indexOf(orig_char);    if ( pos == -1) {        //noncharacter value. don't translate        outstring = outstring.concat(orig_char);    } else {  //translate character        translated_char = new String(key.charAt(pos));        outstring =  outstring.concat(translated_char);    }}document.forms[0].code.value = outstring;}</SCRIPT></HEAD><FORM><TEXTAREA  name="code" rows=4 cols=40 wrap="physical"></TEXTAREA><INPUT type=button value="Decode" onclick="javascript:decode()"><Input type=reset></FORM>

 

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

One of our Chicago cachers came up with a scripted solution for ROT13 encryption/decryption.

---

 

Or, since I'm running Unix:

 

tr "a-zA-Z" "n-za-mN-ZA-M"

 

 

Again, a good idea. I, of course, always decrypt the hints in the field manually anyway, so it never occurred to me to consider that people might actually hit the 'cheat' link.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

One of our Chicago cachers came up with a scripted solution for ROT13 encryption/decryption.

---

 

Or, since I'm running Unix:

 

tr "a-zA-Z" "n-za-mN-ZA-M"

 

 

Again, a good idea. I, of course, always decrypt the hints in the field manually anyway, so it never occurred to me to consider that people might actually hit the 'cheat' link.

[+Kodak's4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

Again, a good idea. I, of course, always decrypt the hints in the field manually anyway, so it never occurred to me to consider that people might actually hit the 'cheat' link.

---

 

Remember, too, that there are only 13 pairs to the rot13 cipher. 13 pairs is pretty easily memorized. Both my daughter and I can pretty much just *read* the enciphered text. I mean, how many times do you need to decipher hints before you learn that 'ybbx' is 'look', 'haqre' is 'under', 'gur' is 'the', 'gerr' is 'tree', 'fghzc' is 'stump', etc. The vocabulary for hints is generally pretty small. I'd have to pause to decipher 'yrcvqbcgrevfg'

but to be fair, it's not a word that gets used in hints very often. Ok, that's an artificial example, but you get the drift.

 

Surely I'm not the only person so addicted to geocaching that I simply sat down for 15 minutes and memorized the cipher. Please, please tell me I'm not the only one... after all, 15 minutes with a cup of tea on the sofa beats 15 minutes in the rain, struggling to decrypt a long hint in the pouring rain, with a soggy piece of paper and a pen with water soluble ink. I'd rather think than do real work any day.

[+Kodak's4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

Again, a good idea. I, of course, always decrypt the hints in the field manually anyway, so it never occurred to me to consider that people might actually hit the 'cheat' link.

---

 

Remember, too, that there are only 13 pairs to the rot13 cipher. 13 pairs is pretty easily memorized. Both my daughter and I can pretty much just *read* the enciphered text. I mean, how many times do you need to decipher hints before you learn that 'ybbx' is 'look', 'haqre' is 'under', 'gur' is 'the', 'gerr' is 'tree', 'fghzc' is 'stump', etc. The vocabulary for hints is generally pretty small. I'd have to pause to decipher 'yrcvqbcgrevfg'

but to be fair, it's not a word that gets used in hints very often. Ok, that's an artificial example, but you get the drift.

 

Surely I'm not the only person so addicted to geocaching that I simply sat down for 15 minutes and memorized the cipher. Please, please tell me I'm not the only one... after all, 15 minutes with a cup of tea on the sofa beats 15 minutes in the rain, struggling to decrypt a long hint in the pouring rain, with a soggy piece of paper and a pen with water soluble ink. I'd rather think than do real work any day.

[BassoonPilot]

I've got an idea that will save y'all some time, and will allow y'all to stop thinkin' so hard of ways of stoppin' others from finding geocaches and git yerselves out there to gee-oh-cache . . . don't leave clues. Just post the stinkin' coordinates.

 

Oh, I see. Perhaps it's not about geocaching.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Oh, I see. Perhaps it's not about geocaching

---

Of course not. It's about giving Markwell something to do in exchange for giving us Hard as Pi. (which we will, someday, come find. It's only a 6-hour round trip; how bad could it be?)

 

Y'see, the problem with just giving the coordinates is that two of the three locations we have picked out are very rich in hiding places. I want it to earn the 5 for the puzzles rather than for the hiding place. Difficult hiding places is the theme for the next cache. (and, on that note, an update: a masonry drill can go through Indiana limestone, but it's a long, slow process. Ten minutes with a hammer drill and a 3/8" masonry bit got me about a quarter inch of depth and a lot of white powder. I'll probably shelve that idea for now.)

[Zig and Zag]

I agree with Warm, Make it easy! I know Zag (my other half) will want to find it. Make it too hard, and you will indirectly drive me crazy. Zig

 

Beter to Zig then Zag!

[Zig and Zag]

I agree with Warm, Make it easy! I know Zag (my other half) will want to find it. Make it too hard, and you will indirectly drive me crazy. Zig

 

Beter to Zig then Zag!

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zig:

I agree with Warm, Make it easy! I know Zag (my other half) will want to find it. Make it too hard, and you will indirectly drive me crazy. Zig

---

 

Oh, I can't help you there. Part of it will be hard no matter what. Besides, we have to get somewhat even with y'all for All Locked Up (which we will be coming back to find, hopefully on a day when our GPSRs are working a little better.)

 

And apparently we're now down to two good locations, because someone has just hidden a cache within 50m of one of my best proposed sites (In fact, the site that was going to be the last cache in the chain.) Guess we'll be doing some more scouting this weekend.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zig:

I agree with Warm, Make it easy! I know Zag (my other half) will want to find it. Make it too hard, and you will indirectly drive me crazy. Zig

---

 

Oh, I can't help you there. Part of it will be hard no matter what. Besides, we have to get somewhat even with y'all for All Locked Up (which we will be coming back to find, hopefully on a day when our GPSRs are working a little better.)

 

And apparently we're now down to two good locations, because someone has just hidden a cache within 50m of one of my best proposed sites (In fact, the site that was going to be the last cache in the chain.) Guess we'll be doing some more scouting this weekend.

[GeoStars]

A cool sounding cache idea that's going to be placed reasonably close! Since discovering this sport, we've been lamenting the fact that most of the challenging ones seem to be out west. Of course, we've got the Cash Cache on our watch list and plan on hitting that one when we have a whole day for the first shot at it. We've only been doing this since February and the weather hasn't been real cooperative. Can you really get a level 3 terrain in northern Indiana?!

 

Just for the record, I like Markwell's idea. I like the idea of being able to claim a find for each stage. From the description, it sounds like each step will be a challenge! We'll be watching for this one.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoStars:

Can you really get a level 3 terrain in northern Indiana?!

---

 

If you're going to do the Cash Cache, you certainly can. When you go to get Clue Two, don't park at the recommended location. Park at the archery range instead. In our estimation, that makes it somewhere between a 3.5 and a 4, depending on other conditions (we did it in the mud.)

 

A terrain level of 3 is actually pretty easy to accomplish: all you need is a good long walk from the nearest parking and a steep grade somewhere along the way. Our 5/3 would have qualified by virtue of being so far from the nearest parking and about ten feet down a better than 1:1 grade.

Even the cache that's where it would have been is rated as a 2.5, and that's probably not an exaggeration.

[GeoStars]

I was being somewhat facetious when I asked about the level 3 terrain in Indiana. I am glad to see caches being placed and/or planned for such things though! My oldest lives for rugged hiking. We like to camp (off-season only, don't like crowds) and the first thing he'll do when we're at a new park is check out any and all rugged trails. He's already talking about his first scuba cache and he's 5 years away from being old enough to be certified. We're pondering the possibility of placing a canoe cache up our way. Glad to see there are other adventurous souls in this part of the country.

[GeoStars]

I was being somewhat facetious when I asked about the level 3 terrain in Indiana. I am glad to see caches being placed and/or planned for such things though! My oldest lives for rugged hiking. We like to camp (off-season only, don't like crowds) and the first thing he'll do when we're at a new park is check out any and all rugged trails. He's already talking about his first scuba cache and he's 5 years away from being old enough to be certified. We're pondering the possibility of placing a canoe cache up our way. Glad to see there are other adventurous souls in this part of the country.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoStars:

We're pondering the possibility of placing a canoe cache up our way.

---

 

While you're at it, how about placing some plain ol' difficulty-ones up your way and maybe a little bit east. I want to get my brother in Angola hooked, but until this past weekend there was only one real cache and one virt anywhere near Angola. (There are now two more; I guess we'll start seeing an explosion of new caches with the return of nice weather.)

[GeoStars]

Other than Pokagon (where we pretty can pretty much hike the trails blindfolded) I don't know Steuben county very well. I'm thinking of placing one in Pigeon River Fish and Wildlife Area but I'm not sure of the policies on hiking there. I thought about calling but think maybe a visit in person (with geocaching info to leave) might be more productive. I don't want to put a lot a work into a cache and then be told that they aren't allowed. It'd be a perfect spot although I'd have to put in a caution to avoid it during hunting season. That would certainly add to the difficulty level though, wouldn't it?

 

I have a county (LaGrange) park in mind too but it'd be hard to make it difficult since the park just isn't that big and there's no real challenging terrain. Kind of a neat park though and you'd go right through Amish county to get there. Are you seeking permission before placing or just going for it? I've thought of just placing one there and seeing how it goes.

 

I'm also waiting a bit to place one to get more finds under our collective belts. I've seen complaints about people placing caches before they have a real feel for how the game works. All of our finds (4) have been different and have given us good ideas. I want to make our first placement a good one.

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

[GeoStars]

Other than Pokagon (where we pretty can pretty much hike the trails blindfolded) I don't know Steuben county very well. I'm thinking of placing one in Pigeon River Fish and Wildlife Area but I'm not sure of the policies on hiking there. I thought about calling but think maybe a visit in person (with geocaching info to leave) might be more productive. I don't want to put a lot a work into a cache and then be told that they aren't allowed. It'd be a perfect spot although I'd have to put in a caution to avoid it during hunting season. That would certainly add to the difficulty level though, wouldn't it?

 

I have a county (LaGrange) park in mind too but it'd be hard to make it difficult since the park just isn't that big and there's no real challenging terrain. Kind of a neat park though and you'd go right through Amish county to get there. Are you seeking permission before placing or just going for it? I've thought of just placing one there and seeing how it goes.

 

I'm also waiting a bit to place one to get more finds under our collective belts. I've seen complaints about people placing caches before they have a real feel for how the game works. All of our finds (4) have been different and have given us good ideas. I want to make our first placement a good one.

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoStars:

I like the idea of being able to claim a find for each stage. From the description, it sounds like each step will be a challenge! We'll be watching for this one.

---

 

I dislike the idea of logging each stage of a multicache as a separate find. One multicache (one cache listing) is one find.

 

IMO, caches should be listed as a separate-but-related cache "series" if each leg presents a challenge substantial enough to warrant a find.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoStars:

Are you seeking permission before placing or just going for it?

---

 

Personally, I'm seeking permission. There are a lot of caches already in county and city parks in Allen County, but I don't know whether the folks who placed them got permission or just went with it. I already have the phone number of someone at the Fort Wayne Parks Department to discuss the property lines at Franke Park (I have a great location, but it's near the edge of the park and I want to make sure it's not private property.) While I'm there, I'll see if he can point me to someone who can approve or disapprove of geocaching in city parks. I'm not sure whether to mention the four caches that are already located in various city parks or not... probably not.

 

By the way, since you're in the area and they're active around you too, I thought I'd mention that approaching ACRES for permission to plant caches on their land seems to be mostly a dead end. That's not a huge surprise, considering their "conservation" mandate, but surprisingly they were willing to consider talking about the possibility of a cache in some of the former fields they manage. This is likely more relevant to you than to me, since most of the ACRES preserves in Allen County are forest, or are like the Bicentennial Woods where the only access to the "overgrown field" part is by leaving the trail in the forest, which is a no-no. I'm hoping to get them to revisit the issue with regards to microcaches accessible without leaving the trail and without disturbing the natural environment (e.g. on the back of a trail sign, or fastened to the deck of a bridge or walkway) but I haven't heard back from them on that.

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I dislike the idea of logging each stage of a multicache as a separate find. One multicache (one cache listing) is one find.

 

IMO, caches should be listed as a separate-but-related cache "series" if each leg presents a challenge substantial enough to warrant a find.

---

 

So is this a vote for my original alternate suggestion of putting each cache on a separate cache page?

 

If so, how would you list the later caches in the series? Are they multicaches or not?

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

So is this a vote for my original alternate suggestion of putting each cache on a separate cache page? If so, how would you list the later caches in the series? Are they multicaches or not?

---

 

Well, your original post was a bit of a puzzle unto itself. The original 5/3 proposal entails going to a given set of coordinates and solving a puzzle to find the next set of coordinates, with each stage increasing in difficulty. That sounds good to me, but I don't agree the suggestion that each step of the multicache should be allowed as a find. One multicache = 1 find.

 

If you decide to use an alternate approach, the individual caches in a related series could be of the standard AND multicache variety.

 

After the first cache in the series, the other caches would be standard caches for individuals who had solved the puzzle from the previous cache, but two (or more) stage multicaches for "new visitors" . . . the coordinates atop each cache in the series would send them to a location where a puzzle (or part of a puzzle) would be found, and when completed and solved would send the visitor to the "main puzzle" for that cache. The main puzzle of each cache would yield the coordinates for the main puzzle of the next cache in the series.

 

The same idea would work for the final cache in the series, except the puzzle left at the posted coordinates might point the "first time visitor" back to the first cache in the series . . . or it could just be an extremely difficult puzzle that would yield coordinates to the final cache.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

So is this a vote for my original alternate suggestion of putting each cache on a separate cache page? If so, how would you list the later caches in the series? Are they multicaches or not?

---

 

Well, your original post was a bit of a puzzle unto itself. The original 5/3 proposal entails going to a given set of coordinates and solving a puzzle to find the next set of coordinates, with each stage increasing in difficulty. That sounds good to me, but I don't agree the suggestion that each step of the multicache should be allowed as a find. One multicache = 1 find.

 

If you decide to use an alternate approach, the individual caches in a related series could be of the standard AND multicache variety.

 

After the first cache in the series, the other caches would be standard caches for individuals who had solved the puzzle from the previous cache, but two (or more) stage multicaches for "new visitors" . . . the coordinates atop each cache in the series would send them to a location where a puzzle (or part of a puzzle) would be found, and when completed and solved would send the visitor to the "main puzzle" for that cache. The main puzzle of each cache would yield the coordinates for the main puzzle of the next cache in the series.

 

The same idea would work for the final cache in the series, except the puzzle left at the posted coordinates might point the "first time visitor" back to the first cache in the series . . . or it could just be an extremely difficult puzzle that would yield coordinates to the final cache.